I haven't seen that stated so I'll go with no in which case this isn't even an issue of torture but rather is convicted felons who are
illegals will be able to claim this now and there is no proof required.

Or maybe not.

It was a question. Is which should have been are. Regardless, is convicted felons who are illegals will be able to claim this now now and there is no
proof required.

It was a question because there seems to be none in this case and the question was if this is the standard. It's not that hard to follow these threads
or keep up with the threads

Proof required that some was tortured or can any illegal convicted of a felony claim it and we just take their word for it. Again forget the
transgender aspect for a moment as hard as that may be for some to do.

I'll leave this for others as I am not familiar with what proof is required to claim torture under federal and international laws and human rights
declarations.

No.
Why do you assume no evidence of persecution was provided in the hearing?

Because if you type illegal transgender claims torture into Google it brings up several sources of the story. Even if you ignore the more right wing
sources and hit the fifth source which is Reuters, none mention anything about proof. Just a guess ylthat of all sources posting the story one would
have mentioned proof of the torture if it had been provided. Crazy right......next

I haven't seen that stated so I'll go with no in which case this isn't even an issue of torture but rather is convicted felons who are
illegals will be able to claim this now and there is no proof required.

Or maybe not.

It was a question. Is which should have been are. Regardless, is convicted felons who are illegals will be able to claim this now now and there is no
proof required.

It was a question because there seems to be none in this case and the question was if this is the standard. It's not that hard to follow these threads
or keep up with the threads

Proof required that some was tortured or can any illegal convicted of a felony claim it and we just take their word for it. Again forget the
transgender aspect for a moment as hard as that may be for some to do.

I'll leave this for others as I am not familiar with what proof is required to claim torture under federal and international laws and human rights
declarations.

Scarring , possible xrays showing broken bones that healed, xrays of teeth possibly showing stress fractures maybe due to punching, dental work
required and performed for the same reason. Anything

The fact that transexuals are persecuted in Mexico has no bearing?
Does the law matter to you?

threats of harm: particularly if the threatened harm is serious, caused emotional or psychological damage, or are credible, for example because
the persecutor has already inflicted harm on the person or his or her family or others similarly situated

The fact that transexuals are persecuted in Mexico has no bearing?
Does the law matter to you?

threats of harm: particularly if the threatened harm is serious, caused emotional or psychological damage, or are credible, for example because
the persecutor has already inflicted harm on the person or his or her family or others similarly situated

The law does matter and specifically the application of that law. Again as hard as it seems for you and others to do ignore the transgender aspect.
The question is will any illegal convicted of a felony be able to claim torture without proof and stay? Who does that include? Murders, rapist,
pedophiles, etc. Different crimes will be allowed to have a case review based on claims while other crimes won't? What's that's saying about the trees
and Forrest? Seems to apply to several here. Forget the social justice warrior aspect and look at it for what it is, a question on legal standards and
application of those standards.....next

Again as hard as it seems for you and others to do ignore the transgender aspect.

Actually, it seems to be you who is having a
problem with that.

The question is will any illegal convicted of a felony be able to claim torture without proof and stay?

No.

Different crimes will be allowed to have a case review based on claims while other crimes won't?

Every asylum case is decided on its
merits.

What's that's saying about the trees and Forrest? Seems to apply to several here.

No it doesn't. (Forrest Gump?)

Forget the social justice warrior aspect and look at it for what it is, a question on legal standards and application of those
standards.....next

Show that special consideration given. Show that the standards were lowered.

So basically you have no clue what this case will mean going forward. You have no clue if new standards will be set, you have no legal background. But
you will act like you do anyways because in all the times we debate you just can't stand the thought you actually don't know. And of course social
justice warrior is supreme with you...got it...next

I think the reason they are not being deported is because they will be tortured if they were sent back to Mexico.

The decision was made based on the evidence they seem to feel was valid whether or not we can see it in this thread .

I do beleive there's an intentional feminization of the male gender role in the United States, and I do beleive also that there is an agenda with all
of the LGBT in your face stuff we have seen as of late which comes fully endorsed by the PC police and sometimes even forced upon the public,

However,

I think in a situation where your choice is to keep a felon in jail in your own country, or to send them back to where they came from to be tortured
my decision as well as what I think the right thing to do is to keep them incarcerated here.

We as a country are supposed. To be a safe haven and I still beleive in my country to do the right thing at times.

All I see is a lot of misguided hate from one side twoards people they know nothing about.

If a person is here illegaly they should be deported, if they are being deported somewhere they will be killed or tortured we should not be a part of
that as a nation and unfortunatly that does mean we foot the bill.

But it's a small price to pay so we can continue to claim our rightful place as protectors of humanity rather than being barbaric and indifferent.

I have a pretty good idea that it won't alter the requirements
for a judgement of persecution. You know there is plenty of "precedent" for denying asylum here, right? That didn't seem to affect this case, did it?
Why would the converse be true?

But you will act like you do anyways because in all the times we debate you just can't stand the thought you actually don't know.

Gosh, "all the times we debate". How many times has that been? Don't like opinions different from yours? Get all hot and bothered about them?

And that's fine and all those point can, have , and will continue to be debated in other threads. My question is what does this ruling mean going
forward. Illegal, convicted felon, claims torture, no proof required.

I gave a question I would have. A convicted pedophile who is illegal. Served the time. Comes out says I was tortured at home for being a pedophile and
if I go back I will be again. Ok that's believable, pedophiles most likely would and should be getting beat downs. Now what. Illegal, convicted felon,
claiming torture, no proof. Now you and I say it's an easy call, would the law? Would it be the first time pedophiles, rapist, murders have been
released by the government into our populations?

I have a pretty good idea that it won't alter the requirements
for a judgement of persecution. You know there is plenty of "precedent" for denying asylum here, right? That didn't seem to affect this case, did it?
Why would the converse be true?

But you will act like you do anyways because in all the times we debate you just can't stand the thought you actually don't know.

Gosh, "all the times we debate". How many times has that been? Don't like opinions different from yours? Get all hot and bothered about them?

Maybe because lawyers argue and judges rule everyday in this country by citing and referencing other cases and the outcomes and determinations of
those other rulings. And this was a 9th circuit court of appeals, lending a little more weight to its ruling if others want to cite it.....so
crazy

Love a good debate, when you can stay focused, not chop statements and follow along its interesting. But rare.

You seem to ignore rulings are made by citing other cases everyday in this country.

You seem to ignore that other similar cases have
been rejected. I just pointed that out to you. Precedent does not define judgement, if it did this case would not have been judged as it was.

This is a federal court of appeals not the local courthouse in Mayberry

I know. It was a three judge panel, btw.

Were those similar cases with a federal court of appeals? And be so kind as to cite the similar cases that were thrown out at the federal court of
appeals level . Also lesser court judges falling under the 9th circuit may now be inclined to follow suit on anything similar to avoid having their
rulings be tossed on appeal to the 9th. But please backup your statement you cite me similar cases denied at the court of appeals level.

But please backup your statement you cite me similar cases denied at the court of appeals level.

You moved the goalpost.

You seem to ignore rulings are made by citing other cases everyday in this country.

Will transexuals be looked upon more favorably because of this decision? Probably, if they can demonstrate that they actually are transexuals.

Does it mean that pedophiles will? No. Do you equate the two?

It's really simple you made the statement that similar cases have been dismissed. Can you cite those cases and were those cases ruled on by a court
that has the same weight as appeals court.

You made the statement now back it up. If you can't do it, say you can't and you can attempt to continue on another point. No goal post was moved.
This court has more weight. Cite equal cases denied by equal authority or admit you were wrong.

You can try changing subjects with the equate question. Won't happen back up your statement

The first response I have is something that has bothered me for a while in the US.

Any time gay or now transsexuals are brought up there is an immediate connection to pedophilia.

Being gay or transsexual is in no way similar to being a pedophile, unless you are a person who classify both as sexual deviants and therefore to you
they are in fact on in the same.

Not saying that's what you beleive but I have seen this happen over and over.

They are not the same by any stretch of the imagination.

Now to try to answer your valid question;

I really don't know. Courts do use prior court rulings to move forward with new hearings this is true. Will it happen in this case? I really don't
know, I suppose it's possible that it could.

But again what I see in the op is a person requesting safety from persecution in their homeland which is what they were given.

I don't have a problem with it.

If it comes up again in the future and they use this ruling to give someone else safety from torture, again I do not have a problem with that.

I just don't understand why gay is immediately linked to pedophilia by many in this country?

Edit to say:
You do not have to look at illegal immigrants to see that our justice system has a habit of releasing the worst back into the population. It happens
everyday and most are US born citizens who went in for a crime they will be right back in for after committing it again once released.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.